In a televised interview with ABC News Primetime’s Dianne Sawyer on December 18th, President Bush stated, “If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that.”

The President’s reference to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), which has been introduced in both the House and the Senate, brings joy to those who would deny gay, lesbian, intersex and transsexual families the more than 1,000 federal benefits that accrue to heterosexual families. Even with this pronouncement, archconservative organizations such as the Family Research Council still criticized the president for offering any hope of government recognition of same sex family rights. Meanwhile, Bush’s actions bring cries of outrage from those who would be victims of constitutional bigotry and discrimination.

“One would expect the President would exhibit more leadership and less tendency to buckle under to extremist elements that make up his party’s base,” said Vanessa Edwards Foster, Chair of NTAC. “Once again, we’re bitterly disappointed.”

Foster added that the FMA will “throw intersex and transgender citizens’ marriages into chaos, and may well deny them the right to marry anyone.”

“Many moderates in the GOP, and even conservatives like Vice-President Cheney, have voiced their displeasure with taking on such a specious bill,” Foster added. “Clearly the knee-jerk right-wing political machine is alive and well and dominating America.”

As tensions and rhetoric rise, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) has called for volunteers to participate in acts of civil disobedience. A widely distributed NGLTF announcement urges lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or other fair-minded people willing to engage in direct acts of civil disobedience to e-mail their contact information to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force at ngltf@ngltf.org in order to be included in planning actions across the country.

President Bush seemed to offer some wiggle room by adding, “Whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they’re allowed to make, so long as it’s embraced by the state.” The proposed Constitutional amendment, however, says that no state law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred on unmarried couples or groups.

Although Mr. Bush is not really offering anything to those not included in the heterosexual definition of marriage, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council wrote, “I am concerned that the President thinks counterfeit institutions such as same-sex unions are OK and do not threaten to devalue the real thing. Counterfeit marriages called “civil unions” pose a serious threat to the health of our culture, and while the President may believe this is an issue to be resolved at the state level, he should use his moral leadership to steer states away from such culture-threatening unions - not encourage them by showing indifference or political tolerance.”

“The Federal Marriage Amendment would undermine United States’ Constitution. There is a part seemingly forgotten by those who would deny anyone but themselves rights,” stated Jerry McCracken of FTM Informational Network. “How is it that the ‘Christian Right’ are the only ones allowed civil rights in this day and age? Our forefathers must be turning in their graves at this assault on civil liberties.”

“Marriage is a legal agreement more than a religious agreement,” added NTAC chair, Foster, “but even considering the religious concept of marriage, why should one faith have precedence over other faiths which have no problem with same-sex unions? Allowing one religion the ability to change the constitution virtually sanctions it as the state-recognized religion.”

The FMA is an attempt to make discrimination a guiding principle in the fundamental law of our land, the U.S. Constitution. The purpose of the president’s declaration is to appease the uncharitable appetite of his religious right supporters. Organizations like the FRC clearly want no tolerance shown to GLBT families.

In this season of peace, it’s time for all Americans – Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and pagans, gays, and straights alike – to call for an end to intolerance, and an end to Republican attacks on the family. NTAC urges all Americans to stand up for civil freedom and civil equality. Write and call President Bush, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, church leaders, anti-gay organizations, and the media and tell them to end prejudice and to end attacks on gay, intersex, and transgender couples and their children. Comments for the president may be called in to (202) 456-1111. Congressional contact information may be obtained at the NTAC website at www.ntac.org

“The President should drop this FMA folly,” added NTAC’s Foster, “and focus on important issues such as bringing more jobs back to America!”

- 30 -

Founded in 1999, NTAC - the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition - is a §501(c)(4) civil rights organization working to establish and maintain the right of all transgendered, intersexed, and gender-variant people to live and work without fear of violence or discrimination.

It's simply wrong to put homosexual partnerships on a par with marriage between a man and a woman, to present the disorder of homosexuality as an alternative to married life.

if two fags want to get married and play house, then that's fine by me. they're not infringing on my rights or bothering me in any way...why the fuck not?

if the only issue is the "sacredness" of marriage, then where are these same people when it comes to domestic violence, or philandering? aren't those an affront to the "sacred" institution of marriage? (which died with the first drive-thru wedding chapel.)

if couples (gay or straight) can find a way to make things work for themselves...and aren't hurting anyone else by doing so..then why not let them do it?

Using your arguments, then I'd ask:

What about polygamy? Why can't I have multiple wives if I so choose?

And what about beastiality? Perhaps we should allow people to wed their pet turtles and such? Let's take this to it's limits...

How about simply marrying effagies? Shall we allow people to marry their Brittney Spears blow up dolls??

it's called "common sense". obviously, marriage is between two people. you think letting gays marry is going to open doors to all kinds of abberations? ridiculous. they said the same kind of shit when women wanted the vote...that such freedoms would destroy the fabric of the family. complete hysterical nonsense.

If people want to participate in polygamy then (and I quote Lenny):

"they're not infringing on my rights or bothering me in any way...why the fuck not? "

If people want to participate in polygamy then (and I quote Lenny):

"they're not infringing on my rights or bothering me in any way...why the fuck not? "

Common sense should dictate that two fudge packing homos shouldn't be getting married either, but hey ... we're getting to where we don't mind that either, so why the fuck not?

If the Republicans are smart, and I think they are, they'll come out very strongly against gay marriage in the upcoming elections. That will get them votes because they'll be in tune with the man in the street.

An overwhelming percentage of Americans are against gay marriage.

My own point of view is that the line between homosexual behaviour and pedophilia is very fine. Given the opportunity, I think two gay men would just love to adopt a 16 year old boy with a cute ass.

If they're legally married, then you can bet they'll be going for adoption rights next.

I couldn't agree more.

And what are the odds that a child that grows up with fudge packing parents is going to grow up to be normal..... (Answer: Slim to none)

there have been many cases of children raised by gay couples, and they've grown up to be as normal and functioning than if they had been raised by a straight couple. it has been my experience that people who make statements such as the ones above have known little to no gay people and presume such things based on their own prejudices.

the only thing that gets me is that something is only sacred once someone else wants a piece of the pie. such hypocrisy.

You realize of course, that you failed to address any of the arguments made showing the ridiculousness of allowing homosexual marriage. Funny how it's "common sense" to allow gays to wed! Patently absurd. The majority of people ON THE PLANET are in fact, against homo marriages.

Liberal's idea of common sense: "The color of the sky is fluorescent pink."

Homosexuality has been around as long as we've been on this earth. Its ignorant people like you that make me wonder why I do what I do. I am a soldier.. infantry.. 11bravo. I joined the army because I like the ideal of america. But biggots and morons like gary are one of the reasons this world is as screwed up as it is. The only freedom we have is the freedom to make choices for ourselves. You may not like gays getting married, but thats fine. You have the freedom to do that, but its not right to deny them rights or to harass people because of it. (and before anyone gives me any freedom of speech bull, freedom of speech does not extend to the point of harassment, only voicing ones opinions.)

I guess Gary hasn't read anything regarding the differences between sexual orietation and pedophilia. I guess he hasn't read anything regarding children raised by gay parents. One wonders about Gary's ability to read these things and comprehend them.

By all means don't persecute them but don't put their unnatural acts on the same footing as marriage.